Rights statement: This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Psychology, Crime and Law on 16/10/2017, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/1068316X.2017.1390112
Accepted author manuscript, 495 KB, PDF document
Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Final published version
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Communication error management in law enforcement interactions
T2 - a receiver’s perspective
AU - Oostinga, Miriam
AU - Giebels, Ellen
AU - Taylor, Paul Jonathon
N1 - This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Psychology, Crime and Law on 16/10/2017, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/1068316X.2017.1390112
PY - 2018/2
Y1 - 2018/2
N2 - Two experiments explore the effect of law enforcement officers’ communication errors and their response strategies on a suspect’s trust in the officer; established rapport and hostility; and, the amount and quality of information shared. Students were questioned online by an exam board member about exam fraud (Nstudy1 = 188) or by a police negotiator after they had stolen money and barricaded themselves (Nstudy2 = 184). Unknown to participants, the online utterances of the law enforcement officer were pre-programmed to randomly assign them to a condition in a 2(Error: factual, judgment) × 3(Response: contradict, apologize, accept) factorial design, or to control where no error was made. Our findings show that making (judgment) errors seem more detrimental for affective trust and rapport in a suspect interview, while no such effects appeared in a crisis negotiation. Notably, we found a positive effect of errors, as more information was being shared. The ultimate effect of the error was dependent on the response: accept was effective in re-establishing rapport and decreasing hostility, while contradict threatens it. Accept seems more effective for the willingness to provide information in a suspect interview, while apologize seems more effective for affective trust and rapport in a crisis negotiation.
AB - Two experiments explore the effect of law enforcement officers’ communication errors and their response strategies on a suspect’s trust in the officer; established rapport and hostility; and, the amount and quality of information shared. Students were questioned online by an exam board member about exam fraud (Nstudy1 = 188) or by a police negotiator after they had stolen money and barricaded themselves (Nstudy2 = 184). Unknown to participants, the online utterances of the law enforcement officer were pre-programmed to randomly assign them to a condition in a 2(Error: factual, judgment) × 3(Response: contradict, apologize, accept) factorial design, or to control where no error was made. Our findings show that making (judgment) errors seem more detrimental for affective trust and rapport in a suspect interview, while no such effects appeared in a crisis negotiation. Notably, we found a positive effect of errors, as more information was being shared. The ultimate effect of the error was dependent on the response: accept was effective in re-establishing rapport and decreasing hostility, while contradict threatens it. Accept seems more effective for the willingness to provide information in a suspect interview, while apologize seems more effective for affective trust and rapport in a crisis negotiation.
KW - Communication errors
KW - response strategies
KW - suspect interview
KW - crisis negotiation
KW - information sharing
U2 - 10.1080/1068316X.2017.1390112
DO - 10.1080/1068316X.2017.1390112
M3 - Journal article
VL - 24
SP - 134
EP - 155
JO - Psychology, Crime and Law
JF - Psychology, Crime and Law
SN - 1068-316X
IS - 2
ER -